qui_list_api_keys

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds that it is a GET request but provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination, returned data shape, or authentication needs. It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the endpoint and action. Every word earns its place, with no padding or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list-operation tool with an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description covers the essential calling convention. It could benefit from noting any required or optional query parameters, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for basic use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema is generic (only 'arguments'), with 0% description coverage. The description explains the convention of passing path variables, query values, and body, which adds meaning beyond the empty schema. However, it does not specify which query parameters or path variables this particular endpoint supports, so compensation is partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool calls the GET /api-keys/ endpoint, which is a specific verb and resource. It implies listing API keys, and is distinguishable from siblings like qui_create_api_key and qui_list_client_api_keys.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the endpoint and how to pass arguments, with no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.